Differences Between Classical and Hellenistic Greek

Ignoring erroneous additions, changes and deletions to the ancient Greek texts, ignoring verb inflections on a mass scale, rampant mistranslating of the meanings of nouns, capitalizing adjectives to magically transform them into proper nouns and parts of titles, adding articles where none exist in the texts, rampant needless use of "synonyms" and paraphrasing, ignorance of figures of speech like ellipsis, and so on and on, to fudge the mortal-made triune godhead theory into the texts of the ancient writers in English translations, is absolutely not honest translation, but bigoted and egomaniacal post-history revision! 

-----: -----

By standardization of translation I mean that in an English translation the meaning of the word or phrase used to represent the meaning of its associated Greek word's inflected form, must be within the scope of meaning of the lexical form for that inflected form.

As you can see, three lexical noun forms, ergasia, ergatēs, and ergon are based upon this verb.  As you may see also, a noun has only four points of inflection, Case, Gender, Person, and Number, which can more finely sculpt a lexical form of a noun into an inflected form having a more precise meaning.

The standardization of translation methodology which adheres to translating inflected forms of words to generally be within the scope of meaning of their associated lexical forms, given apparent figures of speech, and which takes into consideration all of an inflected form's vitally important points of inflection, produces the most appropriate text-driven English language word equivalents, and eliminates unnecessary theologically-based paraphrasing and creative "synonyming". 

Virtually all triune godhead model of God Bible "translations" have fudged all of apostle Paul's passages containing his use of ellipses with various creative "synonyms" and paraphrases, taking the opportunity to fudge-in their own theological private interpretations in all of those places. Virtually all English translations fudge-in wordage reminiscent of the mortal-made terminology invented to describe and explain the invention of Constantinian "Christianity" in the 4th century.  Apostle Paul wrote primarily about vitally important truths related to understanding the greatness of God's new covenant with his creation, truths vitally important to understanding the true orthodoxy of Christ Jesus, which the one true God, Jesus' heavenly Father, taught him. Among those truths is the spiritual truth related to the greatness of God's indwelling holy Spirit which will come into the being of anyone who dares to confess and believe upon the name of his son Christ Jesus. Apostle Paul was especially fond of making his points about all of these related spiritual truths using the figure ellipsis.

Truth in Translation, Accuracy, Readability And Elegance

Scholars of Greek grammar and of new testament studies refer to the quality of Bible translations as being based upon at least three measures, accuracy, readability and elegance.  I recently read a blog on the net by the well known biblical scholar Daniel B. Wallace, one whose Greek books many of us may have on our shelves or electronically, who has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and who is currently a professor of New testament Studies at his alma mater.  In his blog he answered a question, "...which version, the NIV or the ESV, has the best scholarly lineage of historical texts?" -- https://bible.org/article/net-niv-esv-brief-historical-comparison.

Dr. Wallace admitted it was a tough question, and I was impressed with his answer.  But in my opinion he really didn't get into what the fellow actually asked, about the quality of Bible translations being better or worse because they are based upon the best scholarly lineage of historical texts.  For the new testament books of a Bible the three lineages, or categories of historical Greek texts are, the Alexandrian text-type, including the 4th century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the Byzantine text-type (generally maximalist), and the Western text-type.  Dr. Wallace answered the fellow's question as if he meant "historical English translations", which may well be what he meant.

For the LIT I used the UBS4 eclectic Greek text, which has been assembled by many scholars working over hundreds of years to analyze many texts from these three categories above, and possibly others, and from a vast amount of other ancient texts, to try and produce a textual form which may be a form closest to the original forms of the Greek texts written by their authors.  While searching the world over for ancient Greek biblical texts, to compare and identify which parts of them my not be original to their authors, the seven popular textual critics, Elzevir (1624), Griesbach (1805), Lachmann (1842-1850), Tischendorf (1865-1872), Tregelles (1857-1872), Alford (1868, 1871, 1865, 1862, 1870), Wordsworth (1870), compiled notes with examples for those anomalies. 

These notes, and those of perhaps many other textual critics, were then applied almost in their entirety to a collection of what were believed to be the best Greek biblical texts available, and additions, changes, and deletions of parts of those texts were then made, based upon those notes, to produce the UBS4 eclectic Greek text.  Dr. Wallace apparently understood the question differently.  He answered the question by giving a short and high level summary of the history of the advancement in the quality of translation among various translations, such as what was deficient in this translation which led to this other translation, and so on.  But Dr. Wallace gave a higher thumbs up to the NET translation over all the others he mentioned.

- Truth In Translation - The Translator Is Responsible For This

But since Dr. Wallace chose to answer the question the way he did, which may well be what the fellow asked, I was disappointed to not hear him give his opinion on the use of literal translations versus non-literal translations, and the advantages of literal translations over translations which are more highly infused with theologically-biased paraphrases and creative "synonyms".  The whole idea of truth in translation, which is so highly important given the subject matter, which is supposedly God's Word to mortalkind, he didn't comment upon it!  But isn't that the reason for making a new translation from the last, that the new one is a little more accurate in truthfully rendering what the biblical writer actually wrote, than what was translated in a previous translation?  But, why should paraphrased-in readability and elegance in a translation trump truth in translation?  But I assume he wanted to keep his answer brief. 

But I believe there is most definitely a strong link between quality of translation and truth in translation, since Truth and honesty in translation must be the intuitive and intrinsic essence of quality of a Bible translation.  Since the God calls attention to the Truth (John 17:17) of his Word, his biblical writers, the prophets, apostles and disciples have given to us a number of important scriptural facts about his Truth:

- that the God's Truth caused itself to come to pass through Jesus Christ (John 1:17);

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus come to the light through doing the Truth (John 3:21) if the Truth, their guiding light, is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus bow to their heavenly Father in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24) if the Truth about bowing in Spirit and in Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus stay into the Word of God through Christ Jesus, and be made free from myths and lies by that Truth (John 8:32) if the Truth about how to be made free is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus follow him, follow the way, the Truth, and the life (John 14:6), if the Truth about the way, the Truth, and the life is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus learn about, and believe to receive from their heavenly Father, the Spirit of the Truth (John 14:17), if the Truth about the Spirit of the Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus hear the witness of the Spirit of the Truth (John 15:26), if the Truth about how to receive the Spirit of the Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus be led into Truth, into every part of it (John 16:13), if the Truth about how to be led into Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus be made holy by the Truth (John 17:17), if the Truth about how to be made holy is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus hear his voice, his words of Truth (John 18:37), if the Truth about what Christ Jesus said is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus learn the words of Truth which apostle Paul spoke (Acts 26:25), if the Truth about what apostle Paul wrote is translated out of a Bible translation;

- and how can followers of Christ Jesus hear the Word of Truth, the Evangelism of the wholeness of them (Eph. 1:13), if the Evangelism of the wholeness of them is translated out of a Bible translation?

So which one of the generally accepted qualifiers of quality of translation do you think will trump truth in translation: accuracy, readability, or elegance?

If accuracy is compromised then is truth in translation compromised or preserved?

If readability is compromised then is truth in translation compromised or preserved? 

If elegance is compromised then is truth in translation compromised or preserved? 

In the definition of quality of translation, should truth in translation be allowed to be compromised at all?  I believe God forbids that we should dare to egomaniacally make ourselves the God's senior editors, as if we can save ourselves if we invent, construct and believe our own invented paraphrases.

It may be arguable that truth in translation is intrinsic in accuracy of translation.  But who would argue against that?  And who would listen to that argument?  Fools?.  Without accuracy in biblical translation there would be no proportionate Truth in a Bible translation.   So then accuracy must have something to do with a standard of quality of some kind for which a translation can be measured. 

Apart from academic discussions in the halls of theological debate and exploration, accuracy in translation mentioned in online blogs isn't often defined and linked to a definite standard or benchmark of quality of translation.  Even in biblical Greek resources the subject of Truth in translation or accuracy in translation isn't a concept often addressed by the authors/writers of those books.  Why not?  Look at all of the biblical Greek primers and reference books you can find on your shelves and you tell me how many of them actually raise or discuss the subject of Truth in Translation?  The scholars and experts in academia aren't writing much about Truth in translation because many of them are the ones responsible for the endless and needless paraphrases and creative "synonyms" in most all modern Bible translations.  So how is accuracy in Bible translation defined?  And who are the ones defining it? 

If we accept the standard dictionary definition of accuracy then accuracy in Bible translation is "the quality or state of being correct or precise".

So then, a Bible translation that is accurate would be one which renders the meanings of the words in the Hebrew and Greek biblical texts into English words which match precisely and correctly in meanings. 

- Accuracy - The Translator Is Responsible For This

The translator is responsible for the accuracy of a translation from one language into another.  But how can accuracy of translation be measured?  Ultimately the accuracy of translation must be measured by comparing how closely does a Bible translation come to saying exactly what the biblical writer wrote and meant in the biblical Hebrew and Greek texts.

On account of the granularity of meaning inherent within individual Greek words, every "grain" of a biblical Greek word's meaning must be identified and considered, word by word, in order to produce an English translation of that word which translation is precisely correct.

For example a Greek verb has eight points or "grains" of inflection; type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person and number, all of which, or any combination of which, are indicated by a verb's precise spelling, which granular spellings are used to modify their root word's essential inherent meaning.

Rhetorical Questions:   

Do you think an accurate translation of a biblical Greek verb can be made while ignoring the verb's eight possible points of inflection, i.e., while ignoring a verb's precise inflected form? 

Do you think that translating a biblical Greek subjunctive mood verb into an English imperative mood verb is precise and correct translation?

How about translating a Greek future active voice verb into an English aorist passive voice verb, would that be precise, correct and accurate translation?

How about portraying a male character in the biblical Greek texts as a female in an English translation, would that be precise, correct and accurate translation?

With the exception of the last question, the precise and correct inflected forms of verbs are usually ignored in virtually all triune godhead model of God Bible translations.  Oh, that can't be true?  Why don't you look and see for yourself!  Here's how:

Randomly select 10 verses out of the new testament of your favorite Bible, random verses out of any books and chapters in the new testament, and compare the inflected forms of those verbs to how they were translated into English in your favorite Bible, and see for yourself how many of those verb's points of inflection were ignored in translation.  Please do it, then learn, and then quit arguing about it. 

To save you time, you could use Accordance Bible study software, like I do, to look up any verb's actual points of inflection.  Or you could use my LITAGL, analytical Greek lexicon, to look up any verb's inflected form, to see a reasonable facsimile of how a specific verb with a specific inflected form could or should have been translated.  What you'll begin to see is how verbs have been mistranslated in English translations compared to how they should have been translated based upon a verb's specific inflected form in the biblical Greek texts!  Or you can bury your head in the sand and hope that everything you're reading or have read in your favorite Bible translation is actually true.  Yep, translators ignoring verb's inflected forms in order to more easily paraphrase triune godhead model of God "theology" into Bibles, to portray Jesus Christ as the God himself, has been going on now for almost seventeen hundreds years. 

- Grammatical Accuracy

In the biblical Greek, like other languages, we know that it contains verbs and adverbs, nouns and pronouns, prepositions, adjectives, articles, conjunctions, etc., and there are rules governing these grammatical parts of speech and how they are to be assembled together like building blocks into a sentence conveying a coherent meaning.  Adverbs modify verbs, and adjectives modify nouns, and verbs can have direct and indirect objects, and so on.  The rules for how all of these grammatical parts of speech must work together must be followed, or language becomes useless in conveying meanings.

- Inflected Form Accuracy

But in order to really get down to how a biblical writer's grammatical parts of speech in biblical Greek are to be accurately fitted together, a translator must examine the specific and unique inflected forms of those parts of speech which the writer deliberately chose to use to sculpt his words in such a way so to make coherent phrases, clauses and sentences with specific meanings. 

For example as I mentioned before, in biblical Greek verbs have a total of eight points of inflection which seem to be able to be combined into almost any combination with one another to produce a verb with a very specific meaning, which points of inflection are, type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number.  If part of speech is considered to be a point of inflection as well, so be it.  Who doesn't know that phrases, clauses and sentences need to be connected together to portray a partial or whole thought, concept, or idea?  These are the kinds of things which, in preparation for translation, must all be systematically examined within a biblical Greek text's context, before anyone can begin to make a translation out of it. 

NOTE:  Throughout the compilation of the LITAGL, my analytical Greek lexicon to the UBS4 eclectic Greek text(s), using my Enhanced Formal Equivalence Methodology (EFEM) I began noticing how verbs' inherent root word meanings are preserved and used ubiquitously within and across all of a roots' inflected forms.  When according to their contextual usages an inflected verb's usual unique meaning doesn't seem to fit correctly within it's context, then it's usage is likely to be figurative.  Figures of speech floating in a "sea" of literal translation seem to stand out more.

Once a a verb's inflected form is noticed, a translator must examine that word's inherent, historical root word meaning, which must now be applied across all of a root word's inflected forms, with particularly close attention being paid to matching English word' translations to specific Greek word inflections.  In other words, if a verb's voice is middle/reflexive, then don't translate it as an active voice, because it's a middle/reflexive!  Got it! 

I have determined for myself, from countless hours examining the UBS4 biblical Greek texts, that an inflected form's root word meaning is more or less ubiquitous across all of its inflected forms, which observation I use as the basis for guidance in rendering any and all inflected verb forms ubiquitously or figuratively into an English equivalent translation. 

But as time has pointed out to us, biblical Greek root word meanings can slowly change over time.  Over time figures of speech are created regionally and locally.  Figures of speech, which are peculiar socially adopted ways of expressing thoughts, can often preclude a word's root meaning, especially on account of idioms, which meanings are not readily apparent on account of an idiom's meaning is usually not apparent from the meanings of its word components.  This makes Greek idioms one of the more difficult grammatical structures to identify and translate. 

Paying attention to inflected forms in the biblical Greek texts may be the most important step in translation, in my opinion, but it is neglected almost en masse in most all triune godhead model of God-based Bible translations, in order to portray Jesus as the one true God almighty himself. 

Virtually all triune godhead-based Bible translations are massively mistranslated throughout on account of the triune godhead goal of portraying Jesus Christ as God himself!  Virtually any and all verbs in the biblical Greek text(s) which the biblical authors have used to portray Jesus as having his own self  autonomy, mostly middle/reflexive voice verbs, are fudged out of existence in triune godhead-based Bible translations.  Still happy with your half dozen or so triune godhead-based Bible translations, through which you frantically search between them for Truth? 

Here's a couple of my studies in which I show readers shocking examples of triune godhead-based Bible mistranslations of middle/reflexive voice verbs, An Outline of the Biblical Texts-Based Christology of the Word/Jesus Christ, and Prosdechomai, Strong's # 4327, "one causing himself to receive to himself the Kingdom of the God!"

- Contextual Accuracy

Another force bearing upon the meaning of a word, in addition to a word's inherent root meaning and specifically inflected form , is the context of the meanings of other phrases, clauses and sentences around it.  In the latter part of Acts in which Luke writes about apostle Paul's latter itineraries, much of the narrative is about what happen to them while traveling by sea from one port to the next.  In the context of many of those passages is a concentration of the use of nautical words and terms.  In Acts 27:13, a noun is used as having a much greater meaning than simply the expression of its root meaning, and a verb is used likewise.  The following is an example of how context is very important in understanding a biblical writer's intended meaning in his specific use of words.

Acts 27:13 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) of [a] south wind (notou) having blown gently (hupopneusantos), they having concluded (doxantes) to have powerfully held (kekratēkenai) the (tēs) preparation (protheseōs) [fast, v9, RE], they having lifted (arantes) [sails, v10, RE], they were causing themselves to course closely alongside (asson parelegonto) of the (tēn) Crete (Krētē).

preparation [fast, v9, RE] - The inherent root meaning of the word preparation doesn't imply what kind of preparation is to be made, or to what occasion a preparation is to be associated.  But close attention to contexts, local and remote, often reveals a writer's full meaning intended, even though a single word is used.  In Acts 27 Luke begins his record of apostle Paul and companions sailing to Italy to appear before a Caesar.

In Acts 27:9 Luke mentions that Paul and his companions were over-eager to get somewhere, stating that this eagerness was related to a fast which has already passed.   

The most famous Hebrew fast was the one prescribed in the Mosaic Law, given in Lev. 16:29.  This was a fast which the children of Israel were to keep forever (Lev. 16:29, 34).  This fast was to be done in the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar, the month, or moon-th, of Tishrei, and on the 10th day.  Also in the month of Tishrei was a feast which the law prescribed for the children of Israel to celebrate, the Feast of Booths (Sukkoth), which purpose was to remember and celebrate the giving of the Mosaic law, and to renew the covenant the God made between the children of Israel and himself (Deut. 31:10-13), and his deliverance of them.  This feast was to be practiced once every seven years (Deut. 31:10).  This feast was to be kept every seventh year, in the seventh month, on the fifteenth day, five days after the fast was to be kept. 

In Acts 27:9, if the fast mentioned here is truly the same fast given in the Mosaic law, and it had already passed, apparently Paul and companions were anxious to reach land somewhere where they could properly prepare for and keep the Feast of Booths.  According to Acts 27:12, the ship entered a harbor on the south side of Crete, a harbor in Phoenix, where they wintered.  In Acts 27:13, at this time, they being in a harbor in Phoenix of Crete, Paul and companions were still well over one thousand nautical miles away from Rome, which is much to far to hope to make it in the next few days, before the beginning of the Feast of Booths.  If the fast Luke mentioned in verse 9 is the Mosaic Law fast, then the scriptural evidence indicates that here in Phoenix is where Paul and companions made preparations to keep the once every seventh year feast, the Feast of Booths.  On our modern calendar this fast and feast would occur between late-September to mid-October. 

What seems obvious to me, given the revelation from Christ Jesus which apostle Paul received and included in his letters to believers in his itineraries throughout Asia, is that Paul is still practicing an element of the old covenant at this time, a fast of the Mosaic Law covenant, as portrayed here in Acts 27, even though near the end of his earthly ministry he writes to his fellow Hebrews that the old Mosaic Law and covenant, in light of God's new covenant in Jesus shed blood, has now become so displaced by the new covenant that the old covenant is now almost become invisible (Heb. 8:13).  But apparently during this time period of events journaled in Acts 27 by disciple Luke, apostle Paul and other sailors and passengers kept the fast of the Mosaic Law covenant on their boat, anchored near the SW corner of Crete (Acts 27:12).

In Acts 27:13 Luke used the transitive verb airō, specifically its inflected form arantes, a participle type, with an aorist tense, an active voice, a masculine gender, and a plural number, which very specifically equates to "they having lifted".  But what did they lift, where's the direct object of the verb?  From personally examining the UBS4 text(s) over a period of almost 30 years while translating them, I've discovered that missing direct objects from transitive verbs usually signals a biblical writer's use of ellipsis to emphasize something.  Our attention is obviously directed to the verb's apparently missing direct object, which now must be determined from contextual information already given, usually before an ellipsis is used.  In Acts 27:10 apostle Paul places the ship's apparently damaged sail at the center of their decision-making about when and to where they should sail in order to preserve all of those aboard, the cargo and ship as well.  Apparently sailing into rough wind-driven waters with damaged sails could cause the destruction/loss of those sails, thusly stranding the boat in the very dangerous rough waters which could destroy and sink it.  The centurion aboard was more careless about this than apostle Paul.

- Figurative Accuracy

Once a translator has examined all of these things, which parts of speech did the biblical writer use, the root meanings of those words, the writer's use of specific inflected forms of words, the context in which those words were used, figures of speech used, then a translator can begin to make a translation, which by necessity must be literal first.  Only after a literal translation is first made should a translator determine if any phrase, clause or sentence was intended by the writer to be used as a figure of speech of some kind.  This is because when figures are translated literally based upon a word's root meaning, and then its inflection is applied, that meaning often appears discordant with the flow of meaning in the immediate context.  The main problem translators face when encountering a figure of speech is in determining whether the figure is real and verifiable, or whether it is simply being imagined as a product of over-active theological speculation.  Reading heavily paraphrased and creatively "synonymed" triune godhead model of God-based translations is where we find over-active theological speculations translated as being the actual words of Jesus Christ and/or of his apostles and disciples.

- Cultural Accuracy

In the Preface of the book by James M. Freeman, "Manners And Customs of the Bible", is a quote from the work of Rev. W, Graham, from his book "The Jordan And The Rhine", in which Rev. Graham sums up the challenge Westerners may have when reading Bible passages which reference Eastern customs an cultural practices:

"Though the Bible is adapted to all nations, it is in many respects an oriental book.  It represents the modes of thought and the peculiar customs of a people who, in their habits, widely differ from us.  One who lived among them for many years has graphically said: 'Modes, customs, usages, all that you can set down to the score of the national, the social, or the conventional, are precisely as different from yours as the east is different from the west. They sit when you stand; they lie when you sit; they do to the head what you do to the feet; they use fire when you use water; you shave the beard, they shave the head; you move the hat, they touch the breast; you use the lips in salutation, they touch the forehead and the cheek; your house looks outwards, their house looks inwards; you go out to take a walk, they go up to enjoy the fresh air; you drain your land, they sigh for water; you bring your daughters out, they keep their wives and daughters in; your ladies go barefaced through the streets, their ladies are always covered.'" - Freeman, James M. Manners And Customs of the Bible. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1972.

Translating cultural practices, aside from the danger of confusing their references with figures of speech, is relatively easy, when the translation methodology used is to simply quote exactly what the apostles wrote.  Their are hundreds of books written and available which explain the meanings of Eastern customs and cultural practices mentioned in the Bible, which customs and cultural practices, as Rev. Graham has explained, are essential to know and understand in order to understand the full meaning of the contexts of those passages in which they occur.

These are some examples of the challenges which are encountered when striving for accuracy in a translation.  A translator must pay close attention to grammatical accuracy, inflected form accuracy, contextual accuracy, figurative accuracy and cultural accuracy if a translation is to accurately reflect truth in translation to a reader.  And so these elements of accuracy in a translation can serve as the fundamental elements necessary for the establishment of a benchmark for accuracy, against which a translation can be measured.

- Readability - Both The Author And The Translator Are Responsible For This

There are many opinions and proposed definitions of what exactly is readability: easy to read, legible, decipherable, enjoyable, entertaining, stimulating, captivating, and so on. 

These proposed elements of readability obviously portray desired outcomes which are much more broadly based than the simple mechanical presentation of a translation on a page.  I suppose the gamut of desired outcomes of readability to a reader runs from a reader's own subjective and emotional response to what they read to an almost imperceptible hindrance by the medium to the conveyance of that information to the reader.   And so readability, to some degree, must be based upon personal preference, about what exactly does the reader want to get out of a Bible translation.  It may be all of these things, or maybe none of these things, depending upon a reader's recipe of desires at any given time they wish to read. 

I've already stated that I believe that truth in translation is the goal, the bullseye, the top priority when aiming at quality of translation from one language into another, in this case Greek into English.  This is because I simply, or not so simply, quote the biblical writers, giving what they actually wrote preeminence over "theological" imagination.  So then when we examine the readability of a translation, I propose that we must at least measure how easily does a translation present the Godly Truth within the translation, to the mind of the reader.  But how can any triune godhead model of God Bible translation, chucked full of paraphrases and creative "synonyms" from stem (the main upright timber or metal piece at the bow of a ship) to stern (that's a metaphor), be measured against their source biblical Greek texts for accuracy? 

But speaking now with hyperbole, if a Bible reader believes that Bibles in general do not contain God's Word to his creation, but only myths and fairy tales cleverly invented thousands of years ago, then searching for the God's Truth is obviously not a reason why that reader is reading a Bible translation.  Boning-up on myths and fairy tales seems to me to be more likely driven by a desire for entertainment.  So then should we establish a readability benchmark based solely upon how well does the mechanical presentation on a page maximize and present entertainment value to a reader?  I only say this to make the point that to millions of readers of Bible translations, there could be an indecipherable number of perceptions of what constitutes a Bible translation's readability.

How about if a reader cares more for how one particular translation states something than another, preferring opinionated paraphrases that sound less harsh or gritty compared to more direct quotes of biblical truth?  Then does what was written, paraphrases and creative "synonyms" and all, count as a strike for or against a translation, in place of what the biblical writers actually wrote?  So then how can the possible gamut of anyone's personal subjective preferences about readability be quantified into a single "one size fits all" mechanical form of presentation on a page?  I think we can agree that that is an impossibility.  So as you can see we're starting to work down into finding a method of measuring readability of a Bible translation which can be expressed in a quantified way.

How can anyone's own personal subjective perception of a Bible translation's readability be quantified somehow?  I believe personal preferences, on account of they vary so widely, can't be quantified into an objective formula used to measure truth in translation.  But for me, quantifying accuracy of translation, and how that contributes to overall quality and truth in translation was easy, because the elements of accuracy and readability as such are visually objective elements which exist at the level of any word's own inflected form, for each and every word in the biblical Greek texts.

  A definition of readability can't simply be about the mechanical design presentation of biblical subject matter on a page, and should be much less about how a reader subjectively feels about the biblical subject matters he or she may read, and what they may mean to him or her.  But since the reality is that readability is conceived and perceived in a reader's own mind, then that directs us toward a rule of translation which can only get us into the ball park of readability, which rule is to simply quote the biblical writers in translation. 

Replacing the revelation the God gave to Jesus' apostles and disciples with endless triune godhead-based paraphrases and creative "synonyms" used to obfuscate and replace the original Evangelism of Jesus Christ, creates, causes, manufactures only confusion into biblical texts already dedicated to presenting the God monothiestically.  I believe it's all of those triune godhead-based paraphrases and creative "synonyms" used to add in, change or delete parts of the original monotheistic-based biblical texts, which makes readability, and therefore understandability, such as they are, even more difficult for Bible readers than they would be from simply reading a translation which only quotes the biblical writers.  I believe that the creation of confusion over what and who is the Word, and exactly what is the Evangelism of Jesus Christ, God's firstborn son, is exactly the goal for producing triune godhead-based Bible "translations". 

Yep, that's how the devil does it, how he gets you to have another god beside YHWH Elohim, thusly breaking the first commandment.  Some people may be able to rationalize away the breaking of a old covenant commandment, the FIRST commandment, but it's much more difficult to inventory that rationalization when you realize that recognizing and honoring any other god as the one true God almighty is intentional disobedience to the highest God, YHWH Elohim, a monotheistic God, Jesus Christ's heavenly Father.

The simplest way I know of to present anything on a written page for a reader to read is the way I'm doing it right here and now for you.  I'm using no clutter; no embellishments with a plethora of fonts and font colors, no underlines, no superscripts or subscripts, no overlines, no blinking words or words in all caps, but only italics occasionally.  This presentation format uses none of those other things.  This caters to my conclusion that most Bible readers, or readers of anything, want to read formats that are as easy to read as possible. 

 Arguably, the prophets and apostles wrote using many grammatical mechanisms for the purpose of drawing readers into the height, width, depth and breadth of God's Word.  Most of the time, from my own experience, reading God's Word requires consciousness and vigilance in following what a biblical writer wrote, word by word, phrase by phrase, clause by clause, and sentence by sentence, and resisting moving on until what has been read is reasonably understood in light of the whole context.  In this sense, if readability can be partially defined as understandability, then the biblical writer is in control of readability, through how what he wrote challenges the readers level of comprehension.  So how does one's own level of comprehension affect one's own perceived readability of a Bible translation?  Obviously , age, maturity, reading skills, and prior education and training in biblical issues, affect one's level of comprehension of biblical concepts and subject matters, and thereby may tend to enhance one's own perceived readability of a Bible translation.  But not only that, how well a Bible translation caters to one's own preconceived theological ideas which he or she has been orally taught from early childhood, may tend to enhance one's own perception of a Bible's readability. 

So then how readable can a Bible translation be which simply quotes what the biblical writers wrote in the biblical Greek texts, which Greek texts actually contain no references to a triune godhead?  Why don't you examine the LIT for yourself, and see for yourself?  Pick a book, chapter and verse which you think is a triune godhead proof text, and then check the UBS4 Greek text(s) through reading the LIT to see if the Greek texts actually speak of a triune godhead in that verse?  The LIT simply quotes, verbatim, the UBS4 biblical Greek texts.  What are you afraid of seeing? 

Paraphrases tend to tell the reader what to believe, rather than what the biblical writer actually wrote, and that is how the devil does it.  Paraphrases are easier to read because they usually remove the authors grammatical mechanisms deliberately used to challenge a readers decision-making.  If a biblical reader can read without his or her values and beliefs being challenged by a biblical writer's specific wording, which wording constantly accosts readers/believers to stop and think, and to make a lot of decisions over beliefs along the way, then that's easier reading for the reader, because the reader doesn't need to think/work so much, and maybe not even think at all as he or she is reading paraphrases. 

My conclusion about readability is that what the biblical authors actually wrote, the way they wrote it, should be primarily responsible for a Bible translation's readability.  A Bible translator's expected contribution to readability is to simply not screw it up when quoting the biblical writers.

 I say a Bible translation should not compromise the telling of the Truth for any reason, least of all for our own perceptions of others' ability to read.  Biblical truths, as the prophets and apostles witness it to us, should be allowed to accost a Bible reader's level of comprehension and beliefs, so that the challenges of the Truth of God's Word to a disciple's mind causes a disciple to rise up to the level of God's bar of learning and discipleship, and not lower the level of the bar of required learning and discipleship down to the sub-par level of immature discipleship to Christ Jesus (Eph. 4:11-14).

 - Elegance - The Author is Responsible For This

Most definitions of elegance boil it down to the character of being graceful and fashionable in manner or appearance.  Some may be surprised to hear me state that the aspect of elegance in the quality of a Bible translation is totally in the hands of holy Spirit, the God, working through the authors of the texts of the biblical books of a Bible.  Mortalkind's ideas of grace and fashion, and many other things mortals do among themselves for approval from themselves, are usually contrary to, and are abominations to the God's definition of grace and fashion (Luke 16:15).  If a biblical book is translated correctly, the translation will do no more or no less than simply quote its biblical writer.  Then whatever elegance is there or not there in the Greek texts, is subsequently either there or not there in the translations.  But our modern ideas of literary elegance may or may not have been relevant or even existed at the time the Greek biblical texts were written, during the mid to late 1st century CE.

The challenge to a translator is to successfully resist any inclination to manufacture any mortal's perception of elegance into a translation, when rendering the Greek into English.  Another challenge is to recognize whatever elegance there may be in the way the biblical writer wrote what he wrote in the Greek texts.  Elegance may be indicated by observing how well does a biblical writer deliver his message, "tell the story", using appropriate biblical terminology, paying very close attention to inflected forms, figures of speech, and the use of ellipses, the use or non-use of articles, and understood to be verbs.